The lead homicide investigator in the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, multiple sources told ABC News.

But Sanford, Fla., Investigator Chris Serino was instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman because the state attorney’s office headed by Norman Wolfinger determined there wasn’t enough evidence to lead to a conviction, the sources told ABC News.

Police brought Zimmerman into the station for questioning for a few hours on the night of the shooting, said Zimmerman’s attorney, despite his request for medical attention first. Ultimately they had to accept Zimmerman’s claim of self defense. He was never charged with a crime.

Serino filed an affidavit on Feb. 26, the night that Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman, that stated he was unconvinced Zimmerman’s version of events.

It’s about fucking time someone in Florida demonstrated a shred of decency and the ability to think for himself. Let’s hope this one voice is enough to escalate this to a trial and we can move the fuck on.

And, so we see the extent of how badly SYG has screwed things up in Florida, that even when you have a dead body, a smoking gun, and a killer all in one spot, you can’t make a case. This would be a prosecutor’s wet dream in any other scenario.

The local police seemed totally convinced by Zimmermann’s story and did not seem to make any effort to verify it to any degree. Their complacency, along with the wording of the law, is going to make it hard to get a conviction.

The local police seemed totally convinced by Zimmermann’s story and did not seem to make any effort to verify it to any degree. Their complacency, along with the wording of the law, is going to make it hard to get a conviction.

The cop on the scene, who was in hot water less than 2 years ago for another failure to arrest when the victim was black, claims he was convinced. The guy whose job it was to actually look at the evidence on hand and make a determination was not. I’d say it fairly nicely kills the mantra from Zimmerman’s defenders that “The cops believed him!”

Not really. That piece of shit law enables this kind of tragedy. Zimmerman felt “threatened” and shot a young man dead.

Pretty much. It reads as racism on the surface, but under the surface, it reads like frustration with the law. Considering how many other cases we’ve heard about in just the last week alone that involved similar circumstances, of a person with a gun provoking a confrontation and then claiming “self-defense” afters shooting, my guess is that the police departments have adopted an unwritten policy that such cases are to be treated as such unless prosecutors think there’s enough to at least try before a grand jury.

THE very public controversy surrounding the killing on Feb. 26 of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old, by a crime watch volunteer, George Zimmerman, was predictable.

In fact, I, along with other Florida chiefs of police, said so in a letter to the Legislature in 2005 when we opposed the passage of a law that not only enshrined the doctrine of “your home is your castle” but took this doctrine into the public square and added a new concept called “stand your ground.”

Use-of-force issues arose often during my 41-year policing career. In fact, officer-involved shootings were the No. 1 problem when I became Miami’s police chief in January 2003. But after we put in place new policies and training, officers went 20 months without discharging a single bullet at a person, while arrests increased over 30 percent.

Trying to control shootings by members of a well-trained and disciplined police department is a daunting enough task. Laws like “stand your ground” give citizens unfettered power and discretion with no accountability. It is a recipe for disaster.

More and more it looks like racism is the big issue. SYG? Becoming more tangential the more we learn.

I still don’t get how you say that, although you keep saying it. SYG seems to be the basis of why Zimmerman was not prosecuted.

The reporter in that link makes the assertion that SYG isn’t applicable to shield an aggressor, and speaks to the question of “reasonable” claim of self-defense. However, the law does not, it appears, provide objective metrics for making those determinations (aggressor and reasonable).

This is why law enforcement officials were largely lined up in opposition to this law.

This is an NRA law - designed by those who think there is some moral outrage in an expectation that someone would use lethal force as a last resort after a “reasonable” effort to retreat from a threat.

This outcome is a direct extension of the law, and the motivations of those who wrote the law, e.g., to overturn a “last resort” expectation, were clear.

You’re misreading it. He ran him down, and then said that the guy turned around and tried to stab him, so he stabbed him right back. The language of SYG allows that, since he was at a place he was allowed to be at the time of the ‘attack’ and wasn’t committing a crime.

Seems that it was the prosecutors who thought that there wasn’t a case to be made - not the lead police investigator who urged that charges be filed.

And it still comes down to the timeline - and even if Zimmerman is brought up on charges (manslaughter being more likely), he’s free to offer up any defense his defense lawyers think might spring him.

It’s all cold comfort for Martin’s family who can only grieve for the loss of their family member.

And it sucks that the FL prosecutors are more than willing to let vigilantes get off scot free without the justice system taking a look - they weren’t even willing to convene a grand jury to see if there’s sufficient evidence to bring charges in the first place. They simply concluded that there wasn’t, even as the facts suggested something quite different.

It’s becoming a scapegoat. Not that it should stand as is. But Sanford could easily have blown this without SYG on the books. Change or repeal SYG, and you still have a severe problem with the police is Sanford IMO. I’d love to ask him or a Judge how pursuit is defense. That’s what gets me.

Cops have far more restrictions on the use of force, and use of deadly force than under the current law in FL. And that’s despite the fact that cops are more heavily trained in the use of firearms than anyone who can get a license to own a firearm.

Yet, civilians are given more deference for their actions even if presented with situations that can result in deadly shooting incidents. That’s at a time when a cop shooting someone who is unarmed that can result in all kinds of criminal and civil repercussions.

I don’t think so. There’s plenty of blame attatching to other things, like someone with a gun doing a ‘neighborhood watch’ thing while armed, his pursuit of Trayvon, the profiling he appears to have done. SYG is one of the elements that’s being called into question.

Not that it should stand as is. But Sanford could easily have blown this without SYG on the books.

Maybe. But you have to consider that the failure to get prosecutions under SYG is probably one of the reasons the prosecutor dropped this. The prosecutor has to consider if he can get a conviction with the laws on the books.

I’d love to ask him or a Judge how pursuit is defense. That’s what gets me.

They’ve already answered this: it’s because the language of the law is about the moment of the attack, and doesn’t take something like pursuit into account.

It’s becoming a scapegoat. Not that it should stand as is. But Sanford could easily have blown this without SYG on the books. Change or repeal SYG, and you still have a severe problem with the police is Sanford IMO. I’d love to ask him or a Judge how pursuit is defense. That’s what gets me.

True enough, but with SYG there, they would not have been able to just throw up their hands and say “We couldn’t do anything!” A failure to properly prosecute the case and charge Zimmerman would have allowed Martin’s family to not only bring a civil suit against Zimmerman without worry that losing it could cost them, but one against the city as well. As it stands, it’s very likely that not only will Zimmerman suffer no legal consequences from this, but neither will the city if the FBI and DoJ fail to bring charges.

It’s not a scapegoat. It’s a poorly conceived law that allows you to commit consequence-free murder under the right circumstance; i.e., the only witnesses are you and the guy you just killed for accidentally bumping into you.

No, it’s finally getting the scrutiny it should have had before being passed. These NRA-sponsored laws are completely insane, unnecessary, and reactionary, and if any good comes out of the Trayvon Martin case, it will be their repeal.

It’s becoming a scapegoat. Not that it should stand as is. But Sanford could easily have blown this without SYG on the books. Change or repeal SYG, and you still have a severe problem with the police is Sanford IMO. I’d love to ask him or a Judge how pursuit is defense. That’s what gets me.

No, it’s finally getting the scrutiny it should have had before being passed. These NRA-sponsored laws are completely insane, unnecessary, and reactionary, and if any good comes out of the Trayvon Martin case, it will be their repeal.

I somehow doubt that they will be repealed, I think the best possible scenario is that they will not be adopted by other states as quickly or unquestioningly.

More and more it looks like racism is the big issue. SYG? Becoming more tangential the more we learn.

It would seem to me that it was, quite simply, racism behind the implementation of SYG and making it such that prosecutors could not do their job. The whole SYG concept reeks as badly as the anti-“saturday night special” laws designed to only disarm the poor & minorities.

No, it’s finally getting the scrutiny it should have had before being passed. These NRA-sponsored laws are completely insane, unnecessary, and reactionary, and if any good comes out of the Trayvon Martin case, it will be their repeal.

And all it took was a kid getting murdered while buying candy while black to do it.

And, so we see the extent of how badly SYG has screwed things up in Florida, that even when you have a dead body, a smoking gun, and a killer all in one spot, you can’t make a case. This would be a prosecutor’s wet dream in any other scenario.

It allows the police officers to serve as prosecutor, judge and jury.
This is not a good thing.

Paul argued Big Oil deserves even more favors from government, because they’re doing such a good job extracting wealth from American families:

Instead of punishing them, you should want to encourage them. I would think you would want to say to the oil companies, “What obstacles are there to you making more money?” And hiring more people. Instead they say, “No, we must punish them. We must tax them more to make things fair.” This whole thing about fairness is so misguided and gotten out of hand.

“We as a society need to glorify those who make a profit,” Paul concluded.

The companies goal is to make money, not make jobs. If they’re able to make money because of the breaks they’ve been getting without hiring new people, what incentive do they have?

You’ve got to understand, man, that one of the large factors of SYG will be to make ordinary people much more afraid of people they see carrying weapons. You’re right in that it’s not a paradigm shift— the old self-defense laws were also open to abuse, as any law is, and someone could shoot someone and claim self-defense under them, but there was a higher burden, and it would be easier to disprove their story.

I wish I could say different, but my level of respect for Supreme Court Justices is on a steep down slope:

Justice Antonin Scalia said there is no basis for allowing the federal government to impose such a mandate in the guise of regulating commerce. If “forced purchases” are permitted, “the question is whether there are any limits” on Congress’s power.

Insurance is not a “product” in any normal free market sense.

It sounds like they will turn down the individual mandate, at the request of the GOP which invented the principle. So everyone better be prepared to pay more for all the individualists out there who expect their freedoms to be subsidized.

I don’t really see that, no. I see the people who promoted the bill defending it, as I’d expect, and sometimes displaying an odd bit of ignorance about it. The actual rulings on the cases match up with the opinions of the police and prosecutors who warned about this, as do the simple statistics.

Given that stretch of “self defense includes pursuit” I would not trust them to get jaywalking right.

The language of the bill does include pursuit, as long as the pursuit is legal. That is the language of the bill. You have agreed the bill needs to be rewritten, so I am not sure why you continue to defend it. If you want a SYG bill that takes into account the whole encounter, rather than just the ‘attack’, feel free to propose one, but that is not the actual law that exists, the model law crafted by ALEC and the NRA.

You’ve got to understand, man, that one of the large factors of SYG will be to make ordinary people much more afraid of people they see carrying weapons. You’re right in that it’s not a paradigm shift— the old self-defense laws were also open to abuse, as any law is, and someone could shoot someone and claim self-defense under them, but there was a higher burden, and it would be easier to disprove their story.

Under the old laws, the lead homicide investigator may have gotten the manslaughter charges he sought, letting this all play out in court. If the case was lost, then those responsible in the department would have been disciplined or even shit-canned.

At this point we can see qualified opinions vary. A lot.
Given that stretch of “self defense includes pursuit” I would not trust them to get jaywalking right.

In the grand scheme of things, every one on earth is a threat to my existence, and could potentially harm me or steal something which I could one day consider my property (like the Western hemisphere).

I better get busy defending myself. 6.8 billion people might take a while to aggressively defend my way thru.
///

I wish I could say different, but my level of respect for Supreme Court Justices is on a steep down slope:

Insurance is not a “product” in any normal free market sense.

It sounds like they will turn down the individual mandate, at the request of the GOP which invented the principle. So everyone better be prepared to pay more for all the individualists out there who expect their freedoms to be subsidized.

Weird, non-barbed question: Would a rule against a forced purchase of an insurance product also impact mandatory car insurance?

Weird, non-barbed question: Would a rule against a forced purchase of an insurance product also impact mandatory car insurance?

That has been an argument, even originally made by Republican back in the Clinton days. I am sure the analogy has been brought up, although I can imagine a counter argument that nobody is forced to own a car and have the freedom to not drive themselves.

The health insurance analogy to the latter would be to say that people who don’t want insurance and don’t have money for medical bills should be expected to stay in their homes until they get better, or die.

I don’t really see that, no. I see the people who promoted the bill defending it, as I’d expect, and sometimes displaying an odd bit of ignorance about it. The actual rulings on the cases match up with the opinions of the police and prosecutors who warned about this, as do the simple statistics.

The language of the bill does include pursuit, as long as the pursuit is legal. That is the language of the bill. You have agreed the bill needs to be rewritten, so I am not sure why you continue to defend it. If you want a SYG bill that takes into account the whole encounter, rather than just the ‘attack’, feel free to propose one, but that is not the actual law that exists, the model law crafted by ALEC and the NRA.

Not really seeing it? Well stop dismissing out of hand those who disagree with you. Like a few lawyers, a prosecutor and the authors.
These ruling reflect the racism and bad legal work. Like the one I linked in Miami. Just because the law does not exclude pursuit (or any number of other things) does not so basically alter the meaning of standing your ground or defense under decades of previous cases. You take it to the bad guy it’s not defense.

Back in 2007, Barton delivered a message entitled “America’s Godly Heritage” right before Memorial Day where he made the case that God was pro-war, so much so that He even “gifted” certain people with the skills necessary for battle just as some people are gifted in the arts or sports.

One of those people, Barton said, was Congressman Sam Johnson whom Barton called “maybe the most godly man I have ever met.” While discussing the seven years Johnson spent as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, Barton made an aside in which he asserted that intelligence now shows that had the US just done one more bombing run, the Viet Cong would have surrendered:

The companies goal is to make money, not make jobs. If they’re able to make money because of the breaks they’ve been getting without hiring new people, what incentive do they have?

I’m constantly amazed by voters who applaud such inanities coming from the mouths of their elected representatives. I would think “subsidize the rich” would be a losing message, but what the hell do I know?

Under the old laws, the lead homicide investigator may have gotten the manslaughter charges he sought, letting this all play out in court. If the case was lost, then those responsible in the department would have been disciplined or even shit-canned.

At the very least with the probable cause clause of Florida’s SYG law removed charges could have been filed, Sergey dug it up recently:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.

That section is what quashed the arrest, even though an arrest would have allowed drug testing to further gather evidence (drug testing, clothing, further physical processing) and determine possible illegality on the part of Zimmerman.

SYG has created a legal Catch-22 that favors the shooter, cannot be arrested without obtaining probable cause that might not be obtainable without an arrest. One would think that the death of an unarmed teenager would be probable cause enough, but he prosecutor was obviously worried about the financial consequences for the community spelled out in paragraph (3). It a case where CYA preemptively trumps the pursuit of justice.

Grant was convinced in 1864 that one more big push in Northern Virginia would cause Lee to surrender. The result was Cold Harbor: 7,000 Union casualities on one day with no visible effect on the Confederate army.

Not really seeing it? Well stop dismissing out of hand those who disagree with you. Like a few lawyers, a prosecutor and the authors.

I’m not. I’ve seen the example of one lawyer that you gave me, who didn’t engage with the actual language of the bill.

You keep referring to the ‘authors’ of the bill. You do know the bill was authored by ALEC and the NRA, right, not the people who submitted it in Florida?

These ruling reflect the racism and bad legal work.

Why do you feel comfortable telling me not to dismiss the opinions of others, and then simply completely dismissing the idea that the rulings could also reflect the language of the law? The language of the law defines the right to stand and retaliate as beginning at the moment of the attack. The only portion of the law that takes into account circumstance is the part that says that if the person using the lethal force ‘provoked’ the attack they aren’t covered— except if the attack on them continues. If ‘provoke’ is broadened to include pursuit of someone, that severely weakens self-defense laws.

Just because the law does not exclude pursuit (or any number of other things) does not so basically alter the meaning of standing your ground or defense under decades of previous cases.

Yes, it does. The new law changes the old system. That’s what laws do. The meaning of ‘stand your ground’ didn’t exist in Florida until this law; the case history of this law is the meaning of it. Are you referring instead to the Castle doctrine, rather than stand your ground?

At the very least with the probable cause clause of Florida’s SYG law removed, Sergey dug it up recently:

That section is what quashed the arrest, even though an arrest would have allowed drug testing to further gather evidence (drug testing, clothing, further physical processing) and determine possible illegality on the part of Zimmerman.

SYG has created a legal Catch-22 that favors the shooter, cannot be arrested without obtaining probable cause that might not be obtainable without an arrest. One would think that the death of an unarmed teenager would be probable cause enough, but he prosecutor was obviously worried about the financial consequences for the community spelled out in paragraph (3). It a case where CYA preemptively trumps the pursuit of justice.

Exactly. They couldn’t legally do more than hold him for a few hours for questioning, but no more than that. I’m sure there was even pressure on the lead homicide investigator to go ahead and agree with Zimmerman’s story, just to get him out of the station and on his way before accusations that they were unlawfully detaining him.

I’m not. I’ve seen the example of one lawyer that you gave me, who didn’t engage with the actual language of the bill.

You keep referring to the ‘authors’ of the bill. You do know the bill was authored by ALEC and the NRA, right, not the people who submitted it in Florida?

Why do you feel comfortable telling me not to dismiss the opinions of others, and then simply completely dismissing the idea that the rulings could also reflect the language of the law? The language of the law defines the right to stand and retaliate as beginning at the moment of the attack. The only portion of the law that takes into account circumstance is the part that says that if the person using the lethal force ‘provoked’ the attack they aren’t covered— except if the attack on them continues. If ‘provoke’ is broadened to include pursuit of someone, that severely weakens self-defense laws.

Yes, it does. The new law changes the old system. That’s what laws do. The meaning of ‘stand your ground’ didn’t exist in Florida until this law; the case history of this law is the meaning of it. Are you referring instead to the Castle doctrine, rather than stand your ground?

You must have overlooked Lawhawks take on my Page, and his comments later that the timeline is key.

What the shit does a Viet Cong surrender have to do with a victory in Vietnam? The Viet Cong were largely broken as an effective force by the Tet offensive, which one might note did not result in the end of hostilities.

Yes. I’ve noticed that you keep saying that. I’ve also noticed that despite being asked, you have provided no evidence to support that claim.

The closest I’ve seen is Baxley’s claim of a stipulation of proportionality of force; however, his more specific description is “meet force with force,” without any specificity about how that equates to proportionality.

Baxley has a political reason to defend this law against warnings that were made when it was written.

He is also on record as saying that he is against a requirement that lethal force be used only as a last resort after a “reasonable” attempt to retreat. I know that I’m repeating myself, but the target of this law was that requirement. The intent, specifically, was to enlarge the use of “self-defense” as a legal recourse in exactly this type of situation.

You can keep saying that Zimmerman pursuing Martin invalidates the use of a SYG defense - but the evidence stacks up that a SYG defense was at least as operational, if not more, than any unproven assertions you make about racism or incompetence on the part of the cops involved. I don’t know that such factors weren’t involved - but you have yet to prove your case nonetheless.

You must have overlooked Lawhawks take on my Page, and his comments later that the timeline is key.

Well, yeah, I eventually stopped reading the page. And I will probably disagree on the same lines, if the actual language of the law— defining the ‘attack’ as the moment the rights are considered— is not taken into consideration.

From TREVOR BUTTERWORTH: I wonder whether this story takes the record for comments deleted by moderator: “Multiple suspensions paint complicated portrait of Trayvon Martin”

I called MiamiHerald.com’s Jeff Kleinman this afternoon and he said that “we were just talking about that on the desk.” The web staff suspects the story has set a comments-deleted record, but Kleinman said he’s going to double-check for confirmation and pass along stats later today.

Well, yeah, I eventually stopped reading the page. And I will probably disagree on the same lines, if the actual language of the law— defining the ‘attack’ as the moment the rights are considered— is not taken into consideration.

You agree that the law needs to be changed, right?

I’m done recovering old ground with you on this. I refer you to my previous numerous posts on that. And now we see you stopped reading the page but have no hesitation to challenge it. Nice.

while Republicans are trying to credit their small government ideology with bolstering the current economic recovery, a new study from The Roosevelt Institute’s Mike Konczal and Bryce Covert found that those public sector losses have hit hardest and most often in states where Republicans took control of state legislatures during the 2010 mid-term elections. In 2011, newly-Republican states accounted for 40 percent of the public sector layoffs while cutting government jobs at rates that far outpace the national average:

The 11 states that the Republicans took over in 2010 laid off, on average, 2.5 percent of their government workforces in a single year. This is compared to the overall average of 0.5 percent for the rest of the states. […] [T]hese 11 states as a whole account for a total of 87,000 jobs lost, reflecting around 40.5 percent of the total.

I hate to be a wet blanket here but expectations of justice in this case are pretty much a forlorn hope. Florida’s laws as currently written (stand your ground) pretty much exclude any possibility that Zimmerman can be successfully prosecuted for any crime in this case.

Even if he is someday indicted and then found guilty of manslaughter by a jury reacting to Zimmermans needless pursuit and escalation of the situation and perhaps also influenced by the public outcry over this event, the conviction will not stand an appeal.

But Sanford, Fla., Investigator Chris Serino was instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman because the state attorney’s office headed by Norman Wolfinger determined there wasn’t enough evidence to lead to a conviction, the sources told ABC News.

Which, as frustrating as it is, is an entirely correct and factual statement. Barring unequivocal new evidence coming to light that would prove Zimmerman started the alleged physical confrontation with Trayvon by throwing a punch rather than say, “trying to physically restrain him,” Zimmerman simply is not provably guilty of any crime under Florida law.

As long as he sticks to his self-defense claim and there is no reliable first hand evidence to prove otherwise there is simply no way to convict him of anything.

No it isn’t right, and no it isn’t justice, but the State Courts are tasked to uphold the laws as written by the legislature, they have to follow the law, not their sense of right and wrong or their gut. In this case the Florida legislature has stuck the courts with a badly written and poorly thought out law that in some instances can be used to literally legally justify murder.

The fact that the D.A. cannot expect a conviction in this case is not his fault, he is only stating the realistic facts of the case. The fault rests with the legislators who under pressure from the N.R.A. and other “gun rights” lobbyists radically changed the long-standing concept of self-defense from passive defense only to one that includes “offensive defense” (oxymoron anyone?).

Sigh…anyway, just wanted to say that if your building up hopes of seeing Zimmerman “Punished” for his actions your very likely going to be disappointed. Perhaps the Feds can find something to charge him with, but it will not be murder or even manslaughter those could only be prosecuted by the State, and that just is not going to happen… :(

I’m done recovering old ground with you on this. I refer you to my previous numerous posts on that. And now we see you stopped reading the page but have no hesitation to challenge it. Nice.

Wow. Yes, I eventually stopped reading the page, after making many, many posts there. I was unaware that that meant I could no longer reference it.

And your previous comments, none of them have really engaged with the fact that the language of the law says that the right to stand and retaliate begins when you are attacked. You have said that there is an implication otherwise, but you’re not engaging with the fact that this law changes established law. You can’t interpret a law that changed an old law based on the interpretations of that old law.

Will you really not even answer in the affirmative that you think the law needs to be changed? I really think that you’ve said that.

Fearing that certain words and topics can make students feel unpleasant, officials are requesting 50 or so words be removed from city-issued tests.

The word “dinosaur” made the hit list because dinosaurs suggest evolution which creationists might not like, WCBS 880′s Marla Diamond reported. “Halloween” is targeted because it suggests paganism; a “birthday” might not be happy to all because it isn’t celebrated by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

That has been an argument, even originally made by Republican back in the Clinton days. I am sure the analogy has been brought up, although I can imagine a counter argument that nobody is forced to own a car and have the freedom to not drive themselves.

The health insurance analogy to the latter would be to say that people who don’t want insurance and don’t have money for medical bills should be expected to stay in their homes until they get better, or die.

Actually the word-thing makes some kind of sense to me. I can see why, when constructing a test that has nothing to do with Christmas, they’d want to avoid having questions that specifically relate to Christmas.

Problem is that none of this addresses Section 776.032 and the financial stick it wields against the prosecutors and police for making an arrest that’s determined later to be without “probable cause that the force used was unlawful.”

And it entirely depends on what you think ‘precipitates’ means. Does simply following someone and confronting them count? If so, that conclusion would massively weaken self-defense claims in general. Doesn’t seem wise to me.

And it entirely depends on what you think ‘precipitates’ means. Does simply following someone and confronting them count? If so, that conclusion would massively weaken self-defense claims in general. Doesn’t seem wise to me.

Not to mention that if everything in Zimmerman’s claim is true, big if but whatever, he turned around and was retreating before contact was initiated by Martin. The problem is that the law raises the overall burden of proof for an arrest to the levels usually required for conviction, and that just constitutes a horrible hamstringing of homicide detectives. Looking at the big picture, the entirety of the law and how it’s been applied in specific instances, I don’t understand how anyone can believe it’s not fundamentally flawed.

Not to mention that if everything in Zimmerman’s claim is true, big if but whatever, he turned around and was retreating before contact was initiated by Martin. The problem is that the law raises the overall burden of proof for an arrest to the levels usually required for conviction, and that just constitutes a horrible hamstringing of homicide detectives. Looking at the big picture, the entirety of the law and how it’s been applied in specific instances, I don’t understand how anyone can believe it’s not fundamentally flawed.

Exactly. You have to pretty much convict a person on the spot of a crime before you can even begin the process of bringing them to trial. And that often requires evidence that, due to SYG, can’t be secured without a judge’s say-so.

To me it looks like a reasonable set of practices for making tests that don’t require extraneous knowledge and work with one of the most multicultural school systems in the world.

The word ‘disease’ is banned, for shit’s sakes. It’s hard to have intelligent conversation when the mode of conversation is intentionally handicapped to prevent discussion of unpleasant topics. At risk of self-Godwin, I wish to point to 1984.

The word ‘disease’ is banned, for shit’s sakes. It’s hard to have intelligent conversation when the mode of conversation is intentionally handicapped to prevent discussion of unpleasant topics. At risk of self-Godwin, I wish to point to 1984.

But these guidelines aren’t for questions about, say, disease. They’re guidelines for questions where the reference to disease is incidental to the question.

I think, due to the sensationalist reporting of the issue, you’re probably getting the wrong idea about what the list involves.

But these guidelines aren’t for questions about, say, disease. They’re guidelines for questions where the reference to disease is incidental to the question.

I think, due to the sensationalist reporting of the issue, you’re probably getting the wrong idea about what the list involves.

I’m pretty sure I know what the intent here is. They’re trying not to offend any overtly-delicate soul. Everything is designed around the lowest level of offensiveness in many organizations. And yes it’s just for standardized tests. I don’t agree with any of this at all. Children need to learn the realities of life and not sheltered from everything.

I’m pretty sure I know what the intent here is. They’re trying not to offend any overtly-delicate soul. Everything is designed around the lowest level of offensiveness in many organizations. And yes it’s just for standardized tests. I don’t agree with any of this at all. Children need to learn the realities of life and not sheltered from everything.

Besides, they go home and watch TV and find out there are rich people who celebrate birthdays. Could come as a shock.

I’m pretty sure I know what the intent here is. They’re trying not to offend any overtly-delicate soul. Everything is designed around the lowest level of offensiveness in many organizations. And yes it’s just for standardized tests. I don’t agree with any of this at all. Children need to learn the realities of life and not sheltered from everything.

So you’d be okay with this question designed to test someone’s math skills:

“Suzie’s mother died of cancer when she Susie was 6 and her mother was 21. Assuming that Suzie and her mother had the same birthday, how old was Suzie’s mom when she gave birth to Suzie?”

If the question isn’t about evolution or dinosaurs, then I don’t see why it’s necessarily a good thing to throw those in there. There are lots of test questions you can ask without talking about evolution.

Which things do you think should remain on the list and which things do you think should go?

Think positives. Not what shouldn’t be in a standardized test but what should be in standardized test. Right now this reads like a paranoid PC list to avoid any future controversies. It’s just a CYA to help a bunch of bureaucrats from getting crap from the helicopter parents.

If the question isn’t about evolution or dinosaurs, then I don’t see why it’s necessarily a good thing to throw those in there. There are lots of test questions you can ask without talking about evolution.

Not gonna buy into this procedure. This kind of stuff is what makes liberals and progressives look stupid.

Think positives. Not what shouldn’t be in a standardized test but what should be in standardized test. Right now this reads like a paranoid PC list to avoid any future controversies. It’s just a CYA to help a bunch of bureaucrats from getting crap from the helicopter parents.

Actually this is standard procedure for test design. It’s not some sort of out-of-control Political Correctness, but rather the school district making sure that they’re comfortable with, and can stand behind, everything on their standardized tests.

Actually this is standard procedure for test design. It’s not some sort of out-of-control Political Correctness, but rather the school district making sure that they’re comfortable with, and can stand behind, everything on their standardized tests.

The article makes no mention of the topical relevance of the use of these words, but uses generally unequivocal language like ‘forbidden’. If any esteemed commentator has a different source of information, perhaps they ought to post it.

I think there should be no list. There should be well-paid adult administrators and teachers who can be trusted to get their kids prepared for the 21st century.

These are about standardized tests, not about well-paid administrators or teachers.

If you’re against standardized testing, well, I am in agreement with that. But given that there is a demand that schools engage in standardizing testing, I think it makes sense for them to provide the test-makers with a list of guidelines as to what they feel is acceptable content.

The article makes no mention of the topical relevance of the use of these words, but uses generally unequivocal language like ‘forbidden’. If any esteemed commentator has a different source of information, perhaps they ought to post it.

These are about standardized tests, not about well-paid administrators or teachers.

If you’re against standardized testing, well, I am in agreement with that. But given that there is a demand that schools engage in standardizing testing, I think it makes sense for them to provide the test-makers with a list of guidelines as to what they feel is acceptable content.

The function of the list is hardly irritating. The rationale given by the official tells me this is supposed to leak into classroom culture.

I think there should be no list. There should be well-paid adult administrators and teachers who can be trusted to get their kids prepared for the 21st century.

This. If our teachers and administrators are deemed so incompetent as to ask a ridiculous math word question as exampled above (really? has this ever happened in the history of public schools?) then we have a much bigger problem than language. As someone else above said, this truly is a solution in search of a problem.

The article makes no mention of the topical relevance of the use of these words, but uses generally unequivocal language like ‘forbidden’. If any esteemed commentator has a different source of information, perhaps they ought to post it.

The topics are spelled out to companies competing to revamp English, Math, Science and Social-Studies tests used to measure student progress. They are not banned but the DOE keeps an eye on subjects including: Religion, Dinosaurs (because of evolution), Halloween (suggest paganism), Witchcraft or sorcery, Birthdays (because Jehovah’s witnesses don’t celebrate them), and Holidays.

“We” are hosing our kids. My daughter’s middle school in Italy required that 7th graders be tested on American Jazz (Music History from Polyphony to American Jazz). They didn’t discuss Bird without discussing drugs.

Is it the existence of such a list that’s offensive to you, or the exact details of what’s on the list?

Probably a bit of both. I taught at the university level for 24 years and I saw the effects of increasing “helicopter parenting” on the kids in my classes as the years went by, especially Bio 101. Kids who had been so protected from anything upsetting, whose time had been controlled to an alarming degree, etc. simply did not have the tools to suddenly be in a position of self-sufficiency, even one as limited as a college campus. These are the kids who just go nuts with the sudden freedom, completely unprepared for having to get their own asses out of bed and into class every day.

Probably a bit of both. I taught at the university level for 24 years and I saw the effects of increasing “helicopter parenting” on the kids in my classes as the years went by, especially Bio 101. Kids who had been so protected from anything upsetting, whose time had been controlled to an alarming degree, etc. simply did not have the tools to suddenly be in a position of self-sufficiency, even one as limited as a college campus. These are the kids who just go nuts with the sudden freedom, completely unprepared for having to get their own asses out of bed and into class every day.

Yeah, I do feel strongly about this and for good reason.

So you’re worried that kids in New York City won’t learn about abuse, pornography, rock-n-roll music, and Christmas unless those topics are included on standardized tests?

Except that such a list as guidance for test developers is standard practice for standardized tests. No school wants, for example, a question about child abuse on a standardized test.

Having a list that you distribute to test developers is normal.

(I’ve worked in test development — not standardized tests for kids, though — but it’s not unusual at all to have guidelines like this.)

Does anybody need to be told not to put child abuse on a standardized test? There are review procedures. Once again, it’s less the list than the thinking behind it. Are they going to test on the Holocaust in XXth Cent. History?

Does anybody need to be told not to put child abuse on a standardized test? There are review procedures. Once again, it’s less the list than the thinking behind it. Are they going to test on the Holocaust in XXth Cent. History?

Yes, they’re going to test on the Holocaust when testing 20th century history.

The New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE), on behalf of the Division of Academics, Performance and Support, is seeking proposals to provide student assessments, related assessment administration, and an assessment results reporting technology platform. These formative tests, primarily in Literacy and Mathematics, are administered at least once per year for grades K-12, but grades K-2 are assessed in literacy only. This RFP seeks standards-aligned assessments, resources for assessments in Science and Social Studies and online assessment resources for classroom instruction. The RFP’s two components are as follows:
COMPONENT 1:
Assessment content (e.g., literacy, mathematics, science and social studies), which will include the following two types of assessments:
1. END-OF-COURSE DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENTS: Machine-scorable assessments that align with the PARCC equivalent in the areas of test content, design and structure.
2. TASK ASSESSMENTS: Open-ended prompts that require students to use critical thinking skills to address real-world problems.
A maximum of 23 contracts could be awarded under Component 1, but a lower number is more likely, if awarded, because individual contractors may receive multiple awards.

COMPONENT 2: A technology platform that will be used to administer the tests (i.e., select, compile and disseminate test items, score tests, report test results, etc.). This platform will allow teachers to create and save their own custom assessments. A single contract will be awarded under Component 2.

It is anticipated that services will commence in the summer of 2012.

I’m trying to see if I can get ahold of the RFP without registering as a vendor.

Some of these topics may be perfectly acceptable in other contexts, but do not belong in a state test. A basal reader, for example, may contain a story about a child dealing with death; but in such an instance, the teacher has a chance to prepare students before they read the selection, and students have the opportunity to talk through their reactions. No such opportunities are available in a testing situation, so we must be more circumspect in our topic selection.

Based on the curruciulum they’re following. Not just random questions about evolution thrown in there. Note that the restriction is not just on “pro-evolution” questions either — questions that implied evolution was false would be thrown out too.

I think you’re deliberately misunderstanding how this list is meant to be used.

I ran across an interesting fact today, one which I’d seen but not noticed before.

The Zimmerman-Martin fight happened in someone’s back yard.

From the official report we get the report of officer Timothy Smith, first officer on scene:

I was advised by dispatch that the report of shots fired was possibly coming from 1231 Twin trees Ln. I was then advised, after receiving multiple calls, that there was a subject laying in the grass in between the residences of 1231 Twin Trees Ln. and 2821 Retreat View Cir. I responded to 2321 Retreat View Cir and exited my marked Sanford police vehicle and began to canvas the area. As I walked in between the buildings I observed a white male, wearing a red jacket and blue jeans. I also observed a black male, wearing a gray hooded sweat shirt, laying face down in the grass.

I did a google map check of the address. The units are multi-residence buildings. No grass in front, just in the separation and behind. The two addresses in the report are back to back, with the yards separated by a sidewalk. The addresses are also roughly mid-block for both streets.

Zimmerman’s story means he’s claiming he parked partway down one of the two streets, got out, crossed to the other street, and walked toward one or the other end to find a street sign.

And while that portion may not be a lie, the implication he was presenting with that statement is a lie. He was not near his vehicle when jumped.